Talk:Praia do Ervino

Citation style
The non-standard citation style grouping a dozen or so separate citations into one ref tag and using it everywhere in the article makes it impossible to determine which actual source corresponds to what content in the article. This is not something brought over from the original Portuguese article and is unique to this version. This needs clean-up, to convert it into any of the acceptable forms of citing sources at Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, – Nice work! This pt beach article was Google machine translated by me from our Portuguese (pt) Wiki from a stub there. Then, I tried to fix the grammar, intent, and flow. Excellent guess by you.


 * I quickly developed the stub article after translation with some sources I rounded up. The English (en) Wiki enhanced version debuted a few days ago and admittedly has a long way to go.


 * Thank you for your help, comments, and critiques. They are truly appreciated.


 * However, because this is a brand new and underdeveloped article, I had to use general references in a bundle as they are citations that support content, but are not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. We can smooth better ones inline when found.


 * General references are acceptable per the page you linked, and are usually listed at the end of the article in the References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations. I have friends in Brasil searching for more robust and reliably sourced references.


 * Please be patient.


 * Hoping for adds & references versus cruft slashing until the article fully blooms and makes you proud. Cheers!  21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , Afaic, the issue isn't actually more references, there seem to be enough already to establish WP:Notability (although more is always better, so by all means find more if you can). The issue I was noting above, is that all the references are bundled together as one footnote, i.e., note [1], and then used all over the article. Instead, they should be broken up into ten separate references, and the article content should use only whichever sources that actually support the content in that part of the article. If I get a chance, I'll break up the long reference into ten of them, which should make it easier to do the next step. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, the split portion is completed, and the former, single bundled reference with ten sources, is now ten separate references. Of those ten, five are dead urls, with no archive available: I've moved these five to for now, where they can be further investigated to see if a copy can be found somewhere. If not, they should be deleted from "Further reading". The other five are now each one, separately defined reference, which can be used together, or separately, like any named reference can. For now, they are left bundled with the single footnote [6] ("many") all over the article; i.e., it still suffers from the same problem as before, namely it isn't clear which of the five live references really support the content in each section. However, now that the citations are separate, it will be trivial to source them appropriately using named references, with each section containing only those references that apply to it, by name. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * – Excellent. You read my mind, but executed it better. Where is ref name ="many" pulled from? I love LDR. Good work! General refs are only temporary, as you say. Take care always. Cheers!  00:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WikiWikiWayne, the "many" ref is in the exact same place where the mega-ref used to be, it's just waaay shorter, and readable in the wikicode now. That place is at the end of . Mathglot (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)